Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Cherry Picking the Bible- Leviticus and Other OT Rules
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 31 of 82 (321947)
06-15-2006 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by mjfloresta
06-15-2006 10:47 AM


Re: Purpose is Over, But Still Holds
quote:
First: just because a word in Hebrew has different English meanings, you can't just use whichever meaning suits your purpose..Lacking any knowledge that the translators misinterpreted the word given the context, the word must remain..
I didn't. I looked at the way it was used. There has to be something in the way that it is used, that determined which English word was used. I can understand why the English word "wife" was used. Eve was Adam's mate and vice versa.
quote:
Second: These verses are not talking about pro-creation but rather being brought together as one unit - one flesh...
Oddly enough male and female were thought by some to already be literally one flesh (Genesis 1-Male and Female) before God took the female part of Adam and made Eve.
I have difficulty with the one unit idea since the mean were allowed to have more than one wife. My money is still on mating. They unite and a child is the one flesh that emerges.
quote:
Your example of the settlers is an example of "formalities" - the reality being that they considered themselves in fact "married" - whatever that means?- not merely united for the sake of procreating.
Why do you think they didn't want to wait for the preacher? Marriage is a formality.
quote:
Formalities? Replacing the institution of marriage with one effect (procreation) of that institution is not "formalities"....
That's the point. Marriage is a manmade formality. The rules change throughout the ages.
quote:
What rules have changed?
Levite marriages, dowry's, arranged marriages, mixed marriages, rights of the wife/husband upon the spouses death, etc.
Having sex does not equal being married. If you want to say that making a pledge to the other person is what constitutes a marriage, that's fine, but no pledge was made in the Adam and Eve story.
I always thought it was strange that the verse stated that a man would leave his father and mother and cleave to the woman, but makes no mention of the woman's family. But if you look at ancient marriages, it seems that the woman actually leaves her family and not necessarily because she wants to (Tamar).
quote:
Nothing about procreation - everything about the relationship between a man and a woman paralleling the relationship between Christ and his (bride) the church...
That's what I said: This verse supposedly by Paul is over 500 years later and oddly enough I think it was used, in a time of arranged marriages, to get men (not that all men of the time did) to stop looking at women as just a means of procreation.
quote:
When I said the law still holds, I mean that it was fulfilled in Christ -the end of the law... Matthew 5:17 - "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them"
And this is when the backpedaling starts.
quote:
The law served a purpose; that purpose has been fulfilled; That does not mean that the reality behind each individual law has been negated...
But does the reality still exist? IOW, does the need for the law still exist?
People still murder, so yes.
People still steal, so yes.
People still raise cattle, so ...?
People still grow crops, so ...?
Women still have periods, so ...?
Do we follow all the laws or not?

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by mjfloresta, posted 06-15-2006 10:47 AM mjfloresta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by mjfloresta, posted 06-15-2006 3:16 PM purpledawn has replied
 Message 35 by arachnophilia, posted 06-15-2006 6:36 PM purpledawn has replied
 Message 50 by macaroniandcheese, posted 06-26-2006 11:43 PM purpledawn has replied

  
mjfloresta
Member (Idle past 5993 days)
Posts: 277
From: N.Y.
Joined: 06-08-2006


Message 32 of 82 (321950)
06-15-2006 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by purpledawn
06-15-2006 2:56 PM


Re: Purpose is Over, But Still Holds
I'd like to respond to each of your points but for now that'll have to wait as I need to finish posting for now....For now let me address your last questions - do the realities still exist? Is the Law still neccessary?
Jesus in the gospels and Paul in his letters both explain the fulfillment of the Law as being Love of God and Love of neighbors...furthermore, against such as these there can be no wrong...So all laws must be evaluated in this light..
Let's look at your examples:
1. People still murder, so yes.
Was Cain guilty of murder even though the Ten Commandments (Thou shall not kill) were not yet in effect? Of course he was..Why? Because life was instituted by God; Taking a life is certainly not loving to one's neighbor nor is it loving to God...
2. People still steal, so yes.
Stealing one's possessions can hardly be construed as love for neighbor...
People still raise cattle, so ...?
People still grow crops, so ...?
Women still have periods, so ...?
I'm not sure what your questions with these last three is...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by purpledawn, posted 06-15-2006 2:56 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by purpledawn, posted 06-15-2006 4:03 PM mjfloresta has not replied
 Message 45 by purpledawn, posted 06-19-2006 12:21 PM mjfloresta has not replied
 Message 46 by purpledawn, posted 06-21-2006 6:58 AM mjfloresta has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 33 of 82 (321957)
06-15-2006 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by mjfloresta
06-15-2006 3:16 PM


Re: Purpose is Over, But Still Holds
quote:
People still raise cattle, so ...?
People still grow crops, so ...?
Women still have periods, so ...?
I'm not sure what your questions with these last three is...
Those situations still exist, so are those laws still needed?

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by mjfloresta, posted 06-15-2006 3:16 PM mjfloresta has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 34 of 82 (322010)
06-15-2006 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by mjfloresta
06-15-2006 10:47 AM


his woman.
The Hebrew word "ishshah" translated as wife in this verse can also be translated as woman or female, just as the Hebrew word "iysh" which is translated man in this verse can also be translated as husband or male. I don't know Hebrew to know what nuances determine whether it is translated woman or wife. My guess is that it is possessive.
First: just because a word in Hebrew has different English meanings, you can't just use whichever meaning suits your purpose..
haha, i think i'm gonna like you. however.
Lacking any knowledge that the translators misinterpreted the word given the context, the word must remain..
as you probably picked up from my above messages, i do know a little hebrew here and there. (ish) is indeed the common word for "man" and (ishah) is indeed the common word for "woman." i'm actually unaware of any "context" that implies they are neccessarily husband and wife, unless possesives are used.
this is also a reason that you shouldn't try to "retranslate" stuff with a concordance. concordances catalog root words, and contain no grammar, and are actually not very useful for translating. in any case, genesis 2 refers to adam and chavah, in verse 25 as:
quote:
ha-adam v'ishto
the-man and-woman(his).
the man and his woman
the implication of "his woman" is "wife" and so it's perfectly acceptable to translate ishah as "wife" in this instance if you're using an idiomatic translation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by mjfloresta, posted 06-15-2006 10:47 AM mjfloresta has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 35 of 82 (322013)
06-15-2006 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by purpledawn
06-15-2006 2:56 PM


(bump for pd)
I didn't. I looked at the way it was used. There has to be something in the way that it is used, that determined which English word was used. I can understand why the English word "wife" was used. Eve was Adam's mate and vice versa.
see Message 31
Oddly enough male and female were thought by some to already be literally one flesh (Genesis 1-Male and Female) before God took the female part of Adam and made Eve.
see Message 22
Having sex does not equal being married. If you want to say that making a pledge to the other person is what constitutes a marriage, that's fine, but no pledge was made in the Adam and Eve story.
no sex is actually mentioned, either, unless you really twist the meaning of , (etz ha-daat, tree of knowledge).
rather, i think it's important to not that genesis 2 seems to be the cultural explanation of marriage itself, not just the bit read at weddings. see Message 18
I always thought it was strange that the verse stated that a man would leave his father and mother and cleave to the woman, but makes no mention of the woman's family. But if you look at ancient marriages, it seems that the woman actually leaves her family and not necessarily because she wants to (Tamar).
women were non-objects, and genesis 2 is simple male-centric. no surprise there -- the man exists, and woman is created for him.
Edited by arachnophilia, : evil broken tag


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by purpledawn, posted 06-15-2006 2:56 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by purpledawn, posted 06-15-2006 9:18 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 36 of 82 (322055)
06-15-2006 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by arachnophilia
06-15-2006 6:36 PM


Re: (bump for pd)
Are you nudging me?
I think you already know my thoughts on Genesis 1 & 2 concerning their timeline. Sorry I hadn't read your post about the combined male and female aspects. I think that arises from people trying to reconcile them in the order they appear in the Bible.
quote:
no sex is actually mentioned, either, unless you really twist the meaning of , (etz ha-daat, tree of knowledge).
I feel that cleaving has sexual implications. Not as obvious as the uncovering the feet approach , but that's the impression I get. I think it is a birds-and-the-bees type of story.
I agree that the story says man cleaves to woman because they are similar (unlike the other animals of creation), but I don't feel the story is mandating legal marriage. Marriage was already a part of the culture when the story was written down.
quote:
women were non-objects, and genesis 2 is simple male-centric. no surprise there -- the man exists, and woman is created for him.
I'm really glad we got you guys out of that mode.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by arachnophilia, posted 06-15-2006 6:36 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by arachnophilia, posted 06-15-2006 10:05 PM purpledawn has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 37 of 82 (322065)
06-15-2006 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by purpledawn
06-15-2006 9:18 PM


Re: (bump for pd)
Sorry I hadn't read your post about the combined male and female aspects. I think that arises from people trying to reconcile them in the order they appear in the Bible.
yes, something i pointed out. i just thought you'd be interested, since you seemed to be contending (above) that the "male and female" aspect refered to a single individual. perhaps i misunderstood.
I feel that cleaving has sexual implications. Not as obvious as the uncovering the feet approach, but that's the impression I get
you mean you get the impression it's an idiom for sex? interesting, i hadn't thought of that. the word in question, (dabaq) literally means "adhere" or "attach." the noun form means "glue," or (colloquially) "leech" (person, i think, not the animal).
i imagine "attach" could have sexual implications, such as the modern english "hook up." but i think there is just as good argument for marriage. one literal meaning -- and a pun.
but I don't feel the story is mandating legal marriage. Marriage was already a part of the culture when the story was written down.
yes, of course. i think i said as much too -- but i do think it functions as an explanation for that practice.
I'm really glad we got you guys out of that mode
lol did you now?
Edited by arachnophilia, : typo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by purpledawn, posted 06-15-2006 9:18 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by purpledawn, posted 06-16-2006 5:26 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 38 of 82 (322122)
06-16-2006 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by arachnophilia
06-15-2006 10:05 PM


One Flesh
quote:
yes, something i pointed out. i just thought you'd be interested, since you seemed to be contending (above) that the "male and female" aspect refered to a single individual. perhaps i misunderstood.
Just something I remembered reading, although, I think it was a Jewish writing. Of course the idea of the "one flesh" being a child also came from a Jewish reading. So I guess they compliment each other. Separate so they can procreate.
quote:
yes, of course. i think i said as much too -- but i do think it functions as an explanation for that practice.
I can accept it as a description of what was, but not a decree of what must always be.
ABE
I think we've gone a little past what my point was (which I apparently botched) when I first answered mjfloresta's Message 8 concerning his comment.
mjfloresta writes:
In Genesis, at creation specifically, when God established marriage and all of the accompanying relations as between one man and one woman...All of the Levitical laws pertaining to sexual relations fall under the umbrella of this "creation ordinance of marriage", including the prohibition of homosexuality...
There isn't enough said in Genesis 2:24 to be an umbrella concerning all sexual relations.
Since Genesis 1 is a priestly writing, I doubt that the A&E story carried much weight when the laws were established for the temple or otherwise.
If you read the 613 Mitzvot, you will find no laws were pulled from Genesis 2, but "to be fruitful and multiply" was pulled from Genesis 1:28.
Edited by purpledawn, : Added Comments

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by arachnophilia, posted 06-15-2006 10:05 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by ringo, posted 06-16-2006 11:06 AM purpledawn has not replied
 Message 40 by arachnophilia, posted 06-16-2006 11:18 AM purpledawn has not replied
 Message 51 by macaroniandcheese, posted 06-26-2006 11:52 PM purpledawn has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 39 of 82 (322213)
06-16-2006 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by purpledawn
06-16-2006 5:26 AM


Re: One Flesh
purpledawn writes:
I can accept it as a description of what was, but not a decree of what must always be.... There isn't enough said in Genesis 2:24 to be an umbrella concerning all sexual relations.
Yes, that's exactly what I was trying to say, too.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by purpledawn, posted 06-16-2006 5:26 AM purpledawn has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 40 of 82 (322225)
06-16-2006 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by purpledawn
06-16-2006 5:26 AM


Re: One Flesh
Just something I remembered reading, although, I think it was a Jewish writing. Of course the idea of the "one flesh" being a child also came from a Jewish reading. So I guess they compliment each other. Separate so they can procreate.
hmm, yes, that might makes sense -- however. there is nothing in the story that even hints at procreation until this verse. there's a reference to "be fruitful and multiply" in chapter 1 -- but that doesn't happen in chapter 2 (an independent story anyways).
it still might be a valid reading, as long as you're aware that it says "man is lonely, therefor we screw." actually, that might even be kinda funny...
I can accept it as a description of what was, but not a decree of what must always be.
oh, no, of course. clearly, the patriarchs married multiply wives, so their idea of marriage was a little more flexible than modern christianity's.
There isn't enough said in Genesis 2:24 to be an umbrella concerning all sexual relations.
yes, this is true.
If you read the 613 Mitzvot, you will find no laws were pulled from Genesis 2, but "to be fruitful and multiply" was pulled from Genesis 1:28.
well, that's only because it takes commandments given directly by god, and probably only ones that are still valid. "don't touch my tree" doesn't really make much sense anymore, and i don't think god gives any other commandment in gen 2.
but i'm sure there are groups of judaism that read "be fruitful" as knocking homosexuality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by purpledawn, posted 06-16-2006 5:26 AM purpledawn has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by subbie, posted 06-17-2006 10:51 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 41 of 82 (322417)
06-16-2006 8:24 PM


Euphos
Nah, 'one flesh' is just a euphemism for 'the beast with two backs':-p

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by arachnophilia, posted 06-17-2006 12:31 AM Nighttrain has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 42 of 82 (322463)
06-17-2006 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Nighttrain
06-16-2006 8:24 PM


Re: Euphos
yes, that's what pd was pointing out. i see how it could work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Nighttrain, posted 06-16-2006 8:24 PM Nighttrain has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 43 of 82 (322525)
06-17-2006 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by arachnophilia
06-16-2006 11:18 AM


Re: One Flesh
but i'm sure there are groups of judaism that read "be fruitful" as knocking homosexuality.
Seems to me that a compelling argument could be made that the command to "be fruitful" is in fact a directive to be homosexual.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by arachnophilia, posted 06-16-2006 11:18 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by arachnophilia, posted 06-17-2006 3:26 PM subbie has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 44 of 82 (322620)
06-17-2006 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by subbie
06-17-2006 10:51 AM


Re: One Flesh
well, i doubt "fruit" was used in that particular way...
but this book is just full of double entendres, aint it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by subbie, posted 06-17-2006 10:51 AM subbie has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 45 of 82 (323254)
06-19-2006 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by mjfloresta
06-15-2006 3:16 PM


Fulfillment Means What?
quote:
Jesus in the gospels and Paul in his letters both explain the fulfillment of the Law as being Love of God and Love of neighbors...furthermore, against such as these there can be no wrong...So all laws must be evaluated in this light..
So you're saying that if the laws in the OT don't demonstrate love of God or Love of neighbors, then it need not be followed.
Loving homosexual relationships don't interfere with loving God or loving your neighbor any more than a heterosexual relationship. So then why is that a law that is still pinpointed?

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by mjfloresta, posted 06-15-2006 3:16 PM mjfloresta has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024